That Clock Kid

"...that's not a wall of explosives..."

hat tip = Little Green Footballs

Today's Facebook Silly

(And a quick reminder that, for way too many of us, we're making our political decisions from deep inside an alarming deficit of knowledge about fairly simple concepts we were supposed to have learned in 9th-grade Civics.)

I see a lot of otherwise smart friends putting up some really dumb posts. I include myself in the first group of course, but there's no way I could ever break into that second group (of course again) because - you know - I'm just that awesome.

Main complaint du jour: Drug Testing people for Welfare-type Bennies.  This one pops up in various iterations; this time appearing on the wall of a high school buddy's sister:

She was a cop (I think).  She studied Law and Enforcement (says that in her bio). Did she just miss the sessions on Probable Cause and The Bill of Rights?  Or is it a little too much to expect law enforcement officers to know something about that silly old document they all swore to uphold?

Congressional Research Service:

Federal or state laws that condition the initial or ongoing receipt of governmental benefits on passing drug tests without regard to individualized suspicion of illicit drug use may be subject to constitutional challenge. To date, two state laws requiring suspicionless drug tests as a condition to receiving governmental benefits have sparked litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court has not rendered an opinion on such a law; however, the Court has issued decisions on drug testing programs in other contexts that have guided the few lower court opinions on the subject.

Constitutional challenges to suspicionless governmental drug testing most often focus on issues of personal privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches.” For searches to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can show a “special need” warranting a deviation from the norm. However, governmental benefit programs like TANF, SNAP, unemployment compensation, and housing assistance do not naturally evoke special needs grounded in public safety or the care of minors in the public school setting that the Supreme Court has recognized in the past. Thus, if lawmakers wish to pursue the objective of reducing the likelihood of taxpayer funds going to individuals who abuse drugs through drug testing, legislation that only requires individuals to submit to a drug test based on an individualized suspicion of drug use is less likely to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, governmental drug testing procedures that restrict the sharing of test results and limit the negative consequences of failed tests to the assistance program in question would be on firmer constitutional ground.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you suspect me of doing something illegal, then you gather your evidence, you attach my name (and yours) to it, you present it to the nice judge, and then the judge decides what happens next - not you; not by a show of hands from your little mob of drinking buddies; not some Coin-Operated Politician who needs you to concentrate on some shiny object so you won't notice he and his Sugar Daddies Uber-Patriot Donor Base have their hands in your pants.

It's called Due Process, and it's part of that whole American Exceptionalism thing.

Seriously, kids - we gotta brighten up a little.

CCDD

Climate Change Denial Disorder

Climate Change Denial Disorder with Ed Begley Jr. from Funny Or Die

hat tip = Facebook buddy LM-M

"One" More Time

I can almost say that some of this Anti-Vax bullshit is getting to be kinda fun.

As it turns out, in a "free society", we've made it pretty hard to mandate certain health-related issues.  There're loopholes in some of the laws (I know - surprising, ain't it?) and creative ways of using other laws that make it all but impossible to enforce any kind of Anti-Dumb-Fuck Policy like "get your stoopid ass vaccinated because I don't need a smug and disease-carrying-fart-smellin'-over-confident-and-under-thinkin' twat waffle like you fuckin' up my little part of the world".

So, anyway - we have to go on trying to talk sense to these jag-offs, but we should also take a shot at moving them by way of social pressure.  Simply put, we take some of the bullying tactics that so many overprivileged yahoos get away with, and turn it around on them.

hat tip = Democratic Underground

Un-Vaccinated = Unclean

Keep your uwashed filth away from my kids

You see yourself as a Libertarian Hero -

the rest of us see you as that Pigpen kid in the Charlie Brown cartoons.

Your right to refuse vaccination gives me the right to chain you down in the basement, feed you chicken scraps, and throw shit at your head for fun.

Dearest Anti-Vaxxers

I Am Charlie

Gettin' It

From MMA via Crooks & Liars:

Racist Lite

All the stoopid of your regular dumb-fuck bigotry, but with a third fewer IQ points and practically no self-awareness at all.



hat tip = Crooks and Liars

About That 2nd Amendment Thing

Stewart hits it on the head.



I posted this before, and I guess the world is just now catching up with me (blogging is all about self-flagellation first, followed by self congratulation - for having been so nobly self-flegellating in the first place).

Anyway, here's what we tell all the Ammosexuals:  Never leave the house without strapping on at least one of your guns, being sure to wear it in plain view of everyone.  Then, because you need to be safe, and because you have the absolute right to stand your ground if you feel the slightest threat or provocation, whenever you see somebody else who's carrying a gun, shoot them.

Sometimes, ya just gotta let The Stoopid play itself out.

Following Up

I keep hoping the nonsense about "dangerous vaccinations" has receded enough to get  people back to reality, but every so often, one of my Facebook buddies just has to post some bullshit that re-amps the fear.

YouTuber potholer54:




This potholer guy does some good work.  Here's his takedown on Ken Hamm:

A Question

Repubs seem to love arguing about the silliest things.

Benghazzi, IRS, ammunition purchases, birth certificates, FEMA camps, Bill Ayers and on and on and on.

And way too many Dems follow right along, trying to rebut all that crap instead of saying, "yeah - that's just dumb - come back when you're ready to speak rationally about immigration or sequetration or a grotesquely bloated DoD budget or over-stressed infrastructure or clean water or or or".

So I gotta ask - with so many things we really oughta be haggling over, why are they constantly going so far out of their way to find something stoopid to fight about?

Stick to the fuckin' point and stop helping those assholes hijack the debate.

Logical Fallacies Explained

Your Logical Fallacy Is (website - you can scroll thru them all and get a good synopsis for each one)